2019 masters feedback thread

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • 2019 masters feedback thread

      hey guys. Would like to go ahead and start a public thread for players to post their concerns and suggestions about this years Masters that we can improve on for next year. We will try to be transparent with updates we have as well.


      *****WE WILL LIKE ANY FEEDBACK******

      Thanks guys and hope you enjoyed 2019 and look forward to a even better 2020 masters

      @Kazandu @SirMC2015 @Truckeye @eggsPR @JoeFin @Jschweitz @jeff7072 @Gym Shorts @thedoctor @PrettyBoy @Snarkhunter@'GenePhelps'e and anyone else

      The post was edited 1 time, last by bubafett ().

    • I'll get some things started:

      All in all it was a fine event, once things started rolling on saturday everything appeared to run very smoothly: thanks @Truckeye


      Somethings that could use some polish:

      1. There was some very confusing elements to the registration process. Were we supposed to register on the website? The forum? Where were things supposed to be collected?
      2. Tournament pack was not on the Masters Website. This caused some confusion Friday night as this forum was down and people were scrambling to find start times.
      3. Clarity on whose role is what. The community at large did not know that Parkhurst was actually TOing the event, only until some people noticed that Mark C was registered as a player. I think a lot of headaches could have been avoided had the organizers simply been more forthcoming with some details.
      4. Along with the point above this one, information on lunch etc, whose checking the lists, whose a ringer, etc, I'm not in the YouTube game but releasing lists early to one channel doesn't seem fair when its giving others access to lists before the community.
      5. Room block at a hotel near the venue. I always enjoy playing games at night and having some beverages with our community, because we were so spread out and most things were driving distance this aspect of the weekend was missed.

      Some thoughts on the selection process:

      1. Personally I thought the field was a little large, and I say that as someone who benefited from the qualifier. I would like to see the Rankings from Warscore used almost exclusively for the selection process. I wouldn't mind seeing the event itself capped at ~24 players, with three automatic qualifiers going to:
      -Previous year's Master winner
      -Winner from a day before qualifier (one golden ticket so to speak)
      -Winner of the Masters Open event that runs side by side with the Masters
      This would allow for a very tight field, but still has the opportunity for a play-in event, and it gives incentive for a larger Masters Open event to run side by side.
      2. I appreciated the polling request at the end of the event for what cities/places to run the Masters. I like the idea of a rolling 3 cities (west coast, midwest, east coast) to prevent one region always having to travel further afield than others.
      3. I think the committee should find a way to include Team Tournaments into the Rankings, in my opinion three of the best events each year are Colonial Carnage, SIN and Pacific Rim GT. It would be great to have these included in the Rankings.
      4. If there are going to be automatic qualifiers from GT wins, make it top Battle not top overall since sports/painting are not included in the masters.


      Thanks for running and hosting the event, it was a very fun weekend!
    • I had a great time seeing everybody and playing a bunch of really tough games which I believe is the point of the Masters. Well done!

      Jeff and Justin did an amazing job running the event and making sure scores/results were all correct and warscore updates were timely.

      Thanks to Mark and Phil for running the qualifier and grail quest - I heard they were very fun and some amazingly painted armies were present!

      For next year my wishes would include:

      1) Longer round times either by starting earlier or finishing later.

      2) More terrain - I understand that Mark provided most of the terrain for the event and that's all good. I'd just hope the Masters would strive to have each table represent the T9A maps with >6 terrain pieces, whether it's by making terrain for the event which could travel, or some other way (invited players could be required to provide terrain for a single table). Or, prioritize more terrain towards the top tables and less at lower, then do pairings to include table numbers. Also on terrain, preface in the rules pack that some tables will have terrain moved when folks are packing their armies etc, and that it's encouraged for players to rearrange terrain if things look strange. It wasn't a huge deal, but figured i'd mention it anyway.

      3) I'd love to see the round end time announcements changed. Kindly request the wording changed from:

      "15 minutes! Do NOT start another new turn"

      to:

      "15 minutes, do NOT start another new turn. IF ANY PLAYER feels he could finish another turn, please see us immediately and we will assess the situation."

      Saying this could prevent a player from trying not to end turn 4 or 5, because knowing that if the timer reaches 15 minutes before starting the next turn essentially ends the game, thus being saved by the bell by only playing a 2h 45m game since the last 15 mins wouldn't be played out.

      4) I'd hope to see team tournies incorporated into the Masters somehow

      5) Less soft scores incorporated into the Masters invite process

      That's all I got, thanks a mil and hopefully see everybody next year :)
      2012 ETC Ireland - WoC
      2013 ETC Ireland - VC
      2014 ETC Wales - DE
      2015 ETC USA - WoC
      2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2016 ETC Chairman
      2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2018 ETC USA (c) - VC

      The post was edited 2 times, last by eggsPR ().

    • JoeFin wrote:



      2. I appreciated the polling request at the end of the event for what cities/places to run the Masters. I like the idea of a rolling 3 cities (west coast, midwest, east coast) to prevent one region always having to travel further afield than others.
      I think this is a great idea, cycling from West coast, midwest, to east coast. I know a bunch of west coast guys did not come because of the travel distance. And that is to be expected, but the option of having it within driving distance every 3 years would probably help entice people to want to come to it more.
    • First, thanks to all involved for putting this together, it was a fun event.

      Negatives

      My biggest criticism was the work done leading up to the masters, some info was available at the website, other info on the forums. Player packs need to be out early and contain all details, for example, the Masters pack did not have the store address. There was concern with Mark's role as organizer and player. No one knew if Phil K was playing in masters or running Grail Quest.

      Terrain was sparse and small, many pieces were 4" diameter. T9A map packs should be used if possible.


      Suggestions

      I fought the expanding time limits on games early on in 9th, but gave in and expanded to 3 hours turns at Mountain Mayhem because people were not finishing. (some still did not at 3 hours) Masters is another level and the time limits should be expanded to maybe 3.5 hours. (I know, I am always for getting out early on Sunday, but this is the Masters)

      I did not like tagging the Masters event with a small local tourney. If the Masters is not going to part of a premier event like Buckeye, then it should be a stand alone event. In my opinion, Masters should be run alongside the previous years largest US event. I understand the desire to move it around, but the tourney that drew the most players the previous year must be convenient enough to get to.

      I was not a big fan of adding 8 players to "Masters" via a play-in (Even though I benefited from this), shorten the field and go by Warscore.

      January-February in a cold area is not a good idea.



      Positive

      Jeff and Justin did an awesome job as usual running this event.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by GenePhelps ().

    • It took me some time to think on this.

      Positive:
      Great venue with great gamers.

      I loved the idea of a play in to masters qualifier. I feel it helps those who might get the shaft with a bad matchup at an event and can’t place nor a gentleman who can only make 1-2 events a year and can’t place high enough on warscore. There are great gamers who get hurt in matchups and dice rolls. The play in was a great idea to expand the elite. I was also fond of the side event. I feel it was a great idea. This way more could be interested in qualifying the night before and have a reason to stay if they don’t qualify. Or if clubmates want to join their friends for the weekend to show support and not just “hang” around.

      Jeff and Justin did a great job as per usual with running the events.

      Negative:
      No1 knee who was running what. Friday was a cluster in the beginning to say the least.
      Suggestions =More organized.

      The grail quest / Friday qualifier could have been announced and advertised on social media. Didn’t see 1 person besides myself promote these events on FB. Seemed lazy.
      Suggestions =There are many people in FB/Twitter. Promote the events.

      Qualifiers could have been cut down to 4. Expand the rankings. 36 man GT. This gets a feel for an average size GT and a good mix of armies and play styles. I’m not sure smaller is better.
      Suggestions = keep this in mind.

      Website needs work. In the beginning there was no way to sign up, register or pay. Couldn’t find the event packets anywhere. Most players simply went to the 9th age forum and pulled them up.
      Suggestions = Again, organization.

      The venue was great but the mid Atlantic area end of January was cold. The idea of the venue moving from region is great.
      Suggestions =Perhaps since the venue ideas that got thrown out there; Detroit, Chicago and Phoenixville again, that the event could move closer to spring. Having the event in the dead of winter with travel might be a bad idea. This could also help with invites not being rushed right after the last events in the prior year. Give TOs a chance to fix anything wrong on warscore and people to plan a bit after invites go out. Perhaps end of February or even early March. Just spit balling it.

      Last... terrain. Some tables had enough, albeit smaller. Many tables had 5 pieces. I don’t feel there was enough of a mix of terrain either. Not enough water features nor impassable. Fields, hills and forests made up the terrain mostly.
      Suggestions = If there was a possibility that we ran short, others could have brought some, donated some or could have organized a terrain workshop. The community is strong and all three of those ideas would have been possible.

      Cheers! On to 2020!
    • Display Spoiler

      Cealyne wrote:

      It took me some time to think on this.

      Positive:
      Great venue with great gamers.

      I loved the idea of a play in to masters qualifier. I feel it helps those who might get the shaft with a bad matchup at an event and can’t place nor a gentleman who can only make 1-2 events a year and can’t place high enough on warscore. There are great gamers who get hurt in matchups and dice rolls. The play in was a great idea to expand the elite. I was also fond of the side event. I feel it was a great idea. This way more could be interested in qualifying the night before and have a reason to stay if they don’t qualify. Or if clubmates want to join their friends for the weekend to show support and not just “hang” around.

      Jeff and Justin did a great job as per usual with running the events.

      Negative:
      No1 knee who was running what. Friday was a cluster in the beginning to say the least.
      Suggestions =More organized.

      The grail quest / Friday qualifier could have been announced and advertised on social media. Didn’t see 1 person besides myself promote these events on FB. Seemed lazy.
      Suggestions =There are many people in FB/Twitter. Promote the events.

      Qualifiers could have been cut down to 4. Expand the rankings. 36 man GT. This gets a feel for an average size GT and a good mix of armies and play styles. I’m not sure smaller is better.
      Suggestions = keep this in mind.

      Website needs work. In the beginning there was no way to sign up, register or pay. Couldn’t find the event packets anywhere. Most players simply went to the 9th age forum and pulled them up.
      Suggestions = Again, organization.

      The venue was great but the mid Atlantic area end of January was cold. The idea of the venue moving from region is great.
      Suggestions =Perhaps since the venue ideas that got thrown out there; Detroit, Chicago and Phoenixville again, that the event could move closer to spring. Having the event in the dead of winter with travel might be a bad idea. This could also help with invites not being rushed right after the last events in the prior year. Give TOs a chance to fix anything wrong on warscore and people to plan a bit after invites go out. Perhaps end of February or even early March. Just spit balling it.

      Last... terrain. Some tables had enough, albeit smaller. Many tables had 5 pieces. I don’t feel there was enough of a mix of terrain either. Not enough water features nor impassable. Fields, hills and forests made up the terrain mostly.
      Suggestions = If there was a possibility that we ran short, others could have brought some, donated some or could have organized a terrain workshop. The community is strong and all three of those ideas would have been possible.

      Cheers! On to 2020!


      I did not play in the event (would have if I was there).

      The only contentious points I’d bring up is having a 36 man flight is not conducive to finding out “who is best” because it leads to the mathematical opportunity of multiple players being 5-0 undefeated after five rounds. By which, one, or both of the players could play opponents with less total win records than the other undefeated player i.e mathematically.

      If you want to increase the bid numbers one should do it in increments of perfect-Swiss Pairs which would mean 64 bids. That would require 6 rounds instead 5. Thus, I’d be against it. Logistically it’s easier to support a 32 man flight, that pairs perfectly into 5 rounds, and mathematically cannot get you two undefeated players (barring ties which is acceptable results). It’s a “masters” event, the best of the best should be there.

      (Side note to the idea that I heard of scrapping a “side event” and just having a Masters:

      Having a play-in event the day before the tournament is a “gentlemanly” act to do. It allows those that may have had issues attending events, or not having enough, but are “master level players” a way to get into the event barring not making the cut via Warscore. Hence having 4 may be better than having 8 it depends on the play-in, how many players are “brought in” through Warscore, and how many tournaments there are per year

      This as a result means that you need an additional event that is ran along side the Masters. Having players travel possibly hundreds/thousands of miles to play 3 games of T9A on a Friday would not be enticing, and draw very little players for a play in besides locals -defeating its purpose all together, and effectually leading to its scrapping all together.)
      I type on mobile so my spelling mistakes can hide that English is my native tongue. :write: :HE: :KoE:

      Evershade Gaming on YouTube
      youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

      theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog